« insecurity | Main | goose, gander, sauce »

gender barrier?

In the last few days there has been a lot of traffic to the earlier series of posts about writing sex scenes (due primarily to the discussion on Making Light, I'm sure). If you haven't read them and would like to, here are the links:

Writing Sex Scenes :: Part One: Humor :: Part Two: Lyricism :: Part Three: Stream of Consciousness :: Part Four: NC-17 :: Part Five: Where Things Go Wrong :: Part Six: Where Things Go Wrong(er) :: Part Seven: Good Bad-Sex :: Part Eight: More Good Bad-Sex :: Part Nine: Falling in Love :: Part Ten: Less or More

This paragraph is from Part Five: Where Things Go Wrong:

Genitalia, erogenous zones and specific acts aren't the only place where the unmotivated, uncomfortable or lazy writer will resort to cliches. There is a list of words that have been so overused that they should be retired, maybe permanently. Silken thighs, raven tresses, sensual anything -- these phrases have been stripped of any meaning they might have once had. Now they are nothing more than placeholders, and funny placeholders, at that. When the author resorts to these terms, you really have come to the place where it would be possible -- and preferable -- to substitute "and then they had sex" for the whole extended scene.

Dave commented:

People do sometimes point out that cliches are cliches because they worked -- people used them.

I think these are a different sort of cliche.

And if my manhood ever did any throbbing, I'd contact a doctor. How many of these things come from trying to cross some gender barrier.

If I understand correctly, Dave thinks that it's not quite right to call overused sexual terms cliches. Generally it is agreed that a term gets to be a cliche because it is so apt, so spot on, so appropriate, that everybody immediately recognizes its value and uses it... and if you look at it like that, then yes, "throbbing manhood" is not a cliche. It's just an example of really bad word choice, but one that still got picked up and reused.

Does this have anything to do with grossing gender boundaries? It's the old debate:

can a man write a woman's POV? can a woman write a man's?

And of course sex complicates this question, as it does everything. If a woman writer resorts to using 'throbbing manhood' is that because she's a poor writer, or because she doesn't really understand (and thus can't convey) the male's experience of sex?

I think the answer is fairly straight forward, because there are examples out there of women who write sex scenes well from either POV (and the opposite case, of course, as well). It is possible to do, but writing the opposite POV is a particular kind of challenge. A writer who uses 'throbbing manhood' has declined to meet the challenge or do the work, and has settled for a phrase that is -- if not a cliche -- just damn awful.

How does this kind of thing happen? Somebody who shouldn't have been writing a sex scene in the first place wasn't happy with the sober sound of the word penis, but cock or dick were too evocative. Manhood wasn't quite right either, so an adjective was put into play, and thus the tragedy ensued.

All this reminds me of one of the rules of thumb you'll hear in most every creative writing classroom: never use a quarter word when a nickle word will do. Further: a quarter word plus an adjective = trouble.

December 8, 2004 04:55 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tiedtothetracks.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/280

Comments

Posted by: Espresso Addict at December 8, 2004 08:23 PM